The concurrence of any State Department proclamations about other governments and the emergence of new pretexts for war is so prevalent these days, that the two kinds of events seem almost inseparable.

A case in point occurred on the week of April 1, when on Wednesday, diplomats from the leading four members of the “Friends of Syria” coalition (UK, U.S., France and Germany) collectively issued a statement to memorialize what they called the “First Anniversary of Chemical Attack on Khan Sheikhoun, Syria.” While noteworthy as a highly unusual sort of thing to publish in the first place, the most noteworthy thing about the statement was that it was a repetition of the same unfounded and sensationalist justifications used a year ago for an attack on Syria by the U.S. 6th Fleet. At that time in 2017, after so-called humanitarian concerns about a “chemical weapons attack” declared to be perpetrated by the Syrian Army were cited, two U.S. destroyers fired 50 to 60 Tomahawk missiles from their location in the Mediterranean Sea, which led to the deaths of at least 25 people. After reaffirming its lasting faith that chemical weapons were used in Syria, the Friends of Syria statement concluded with the joint affirmation that “We will not rest in our efforts to seek justice for the victims of these abhorrent attacks in Syria.”

Lo and behold, three days later, the same species of allegation occurred, this time with respect to the town Douma.

Then, one week later, on April 14, the U.S. military executed yet another harmful attack on Syrian soil. An air force combination orchestrated by the U.S., with the help of Qatar, the UK, and France, dropped not less than 110 missiles over the capital city of Damascus and other areas before escaping the country to a nearby forward operating base. The results were that three people were injured and Syria was forced to use up several dozen of its surface-to-air missiles to protect its environment, people and buildings.

Regardless of whatever self-exposures, untruths and absurdities are involved in its justifications, the military aggression by the U.S. government against yet another sovereign country is what must be reacted to. It is nothing less than a barbarous series of acts of state terrorism. There is no blue or expert seal of approval that could ever substitute for the struggle of the people. We must take a stand of principle against U.S. aggression, in defense of the sovereignty of countries and renunciation of the use of force by one state against another. The U.S. government is acting as if it has appointed itself the attack dog of an international destabilization campaign. So too, the occurrences in Syria are not just the first time and place this century that international public opinion has exposed the U.S. as a predatory imperialist power which is striking out against its opponents and seeking pretexts for launching new wars against peoples and nations everywhere.

In Syria, U.S. military attacks have been ongoing since at least 2011. After occupying Iraq and waging a colonial war there, the U.S. then used the country as a lever for launching a CIA dirty-war targeting Syria. On May 18, 2011, a U.S. executive order was issued proclaiming that the Syrian President must give in to the arbitrary demands of U.S.-backed rebels or “get out of the way.” Subsequently, some $1 billion in spending for CIA military operations was disclosed. By January 30, 2013, word came from Washington announcing that an Israeli airstrike in Syria had received U.S. approval beforehand. And by September 22, 2014, the U.S. military was launching its own airstrikes.

The complete unity of the two parties has been evident throughout the U.S. process of trying to destroy Syria. Another leading event in the experience of the anti-war movement occured last year, when both parties once again rallied, this time in support of that U.S. 6th Fleet airstrike. All the chief representatives of government came together to legitimize U.S. crimes against the people by either praising U.S. military attacks outright, or placing partial blame on Syria for becoming a U.S. target.

Since 2017 there has been some dispute between Congressional members of the two parties over whether President Trump should be credited with improving the Obama administration’s previous leadership by escalating the same policy towards Syria, or if the lack of Congressional approval for U.S. military action in Syria should now be highlighted. As in the past, the competition between the Republicans and Democrats – that exercise a privileged position of political monopoly sanctioned by law – is a competition over which party will do the “best job” prosecuting the aggressive war program of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class.

It is the American working class and people who are the internal force against war. It is only by developing the consciousness, organization and political independence of the people themselves, only by organizing ourselves in opposition to and struggle against the capitalist class, that we can further advance the movement against imperialist war and militarism. Further U.S. preparations for an invasion of Syria can be averted through the struggle of the people. As for the capitalist-imperialist system which is the source of war, it will remain a system of exploitation and colonialism until it is overthrown by the peoples.

This means that in the course of the anti-war struggle of the American people, just as in other struggles against imperialist exploitation and domination, we must continually build up the independent political movement of the workers and people. This means that we must also underscore that each front in the U.S. government’s war program is one link in a chain of U.S. aggression and intervention across the world. This means that we must resolutely support the national liberation struggles and all the revolutionary forces which are fighting against the common enemy – imperialism. This is the only way to stop imperialism and reaction from achieving its ambitions, and the only way to give a start to the world’s passage to a new historical epoch without wars.